Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

As the minister has indicated, these amendments deal with locking states into increasing their funding in five equal increments until they are at 75 per cent of the student resourcing standard. It also allows states that are above 80 per cent of the student resource standard funding—currently the ACT and Western Australia—to reduce their funding, which essentially allows some cost shifting. I have raised this perversity in the past in relation to the Grattan Institute's suggestion to the Senate committee inquiry that states might retreat—or, indeed, that states could consider and perhaps should retreat—from their existing funding arrangements in that respect. Indeed, here we potentially have that shifting in relation to the ACT and Western Australia.

The minister referred to the Senate committee inquiry and other submissions leading to some of the further work that is involved in this amendment. Minister, having observed at least the public elements of that process, my reflection would be that these amendments are not well informed. We have had the discussion about how well informed was this policy shift from the combined approach as recommended by the Gonski review to the Commonwealth share approach. I remain to be shown anything that informed that shift. I continue only to be told that cabinet determined it, rather than any informed thought, discussion or policy development. Even the Grattan Institute could not assist there.

These amendments basically represent a will or desire that states do certain things. As I have said previously, it has been very naive to suggest that one size fits all will work in this federation in relation to school funding. I suspect the future will highlight that. I suspect the future will highlight that this attempt to tie states and territories with this stick approach is not going to work either. There has been nothing that we have observed coming out of the ministerial council or coming out of COAG that gives us any confidence at all that this approach might work.

In this area it enables crossbench senators to suggest that they tried, and there is something there to try to deal with state and territories, but, as one of the few remaining senators from previous government, I have to express my scepticism that these arrangements will work at either a ministerial council level or a COAG level. I say that with regret, but I also say it with the experience of having worked with states and territories across governments of different persuasions to build the nationally consistent data set for students with disability. I have participated in these forums and I know how they can work when state and territories attempt to work together or when states and territories involve genuine consultation and engagement with the non-government school sectors as well. There is nothing in these amendments that gives me any confidence that this process will work or that it will be enforceable in any other way other than public accountability that might be available through the school resourcing board. I have to say that we can have very little confidence that these arrangements will operate that some crossbenchers, particularly, might have been attempting in encouraging the government to establish this.

That aside, Labor still fundamentally believes that all schools across the country should move to a fairer funding level than this 75 per cent of the student resource standard. We believe that the 95 per cent that we struck under Gonski 1 was the appropriate level to aim for, and this 75 per cent state, you say, is still not getting schools to the combined level that we need them to be at, especially given my earlier remarks about the six-year transition and the number of schools that under the six-year transition still will not get to the level we need, or the number of public schools in that case, to the level we need them to get to.

At risk of being repetitious here, the review of funding for schooling clearly stated that this needs to be done in partnership with states and territories, again with that combined resourcing approach that is lacking from these amendments within the overall framework. This is why Labor worked with states and territories to achieve this. We have had the government, for the last four years, telling us: 'State contributions don't matter; it's up to them. They should be able to do their own thing.' Now, all of a sudden, we are back to an attempt—it is not a realistic attempt; it is not an enforceable attempt. In fact, what is that expression—putting lipstick on a pig? That is probably a better characterisation of what is occurring here, because now, at the last minute, the government is trying to rush through an amendment that seeks to bind state government budgets, with absolutely no discussion or agreement with states and territories and no advice as to how enforceable those arrangements might be.

So, arising from that, Minister, I have two questions. One is: how many different agreements and arrangements will we end up with under these new concessions? Senator O'Neill, I understand, has already asked this question in a different discussion. But, Minister, I understand that there has been no response. Given the somewhat glib characterisation earlier from other senators about the 27 different arrangements, I am really not sure that we have moved that far away from 27 different arrangements, with a range of other accommodations.

Overall, that might more adequately deal with our delivery of school education in Australia than the provisions originally in the bill, but let's just make that point. This is no longer the pure one-size-fits-all arrangement that the minister has told us consistently, for the last six months probably, was his objective. And indeed, Minister, could you answer: why are you allowing the ACT and Western Australia to cost-shift to the Commonwealth by reducing their funding to schools to 80 per cent of the SRS?